Archives for category: Funding

Steven Dyer writes here of a seeming paradox:

Enrollment in Ohio’s private schools has dropped by 14% since 2008 but its funding has increased by 135% over the same period.

No paradox but a demonstration of the power of the lobbyists for private schools, who have drained money away from the state’s public schools.

He begins:

If you ever wondered what power looks like, I give you Ohio’s private school lobby. Why do I say that?

Because on what other planet, in what other universe, in what other industry would increasing investment by 135 percent over 11 years in a service that lost 14 percent of their customers over the same time be tolerated?

Because that’s exactly what’s happened here in Ohio with your money.

Here’s the data: In October 2008, the Ohio Department of Education counted about 171,319 students in Ohio’s non-public schools. Meanwhile, in October 2019, ODE reported 146,054.

That’s a 14.7 percent enrollment drop.

Meanwhile, in the 2008-2009 school year, Ohio taxpayers sent $291,530,743 to private schools through busing, administrative cost reimbursements, auxiliary services and vouchers (SEE note below on what these are). This year, that number will balloon to $685,853,844.

The nonprofit, nonpartisan “In the Public Interest” joined forces with Parents United for Public Schools in Oakland to investigate whether charter schools in that city were double-dipping, taking public school money and also taking federal funds intended for small businesses. Their conclusion: Oakland charters have collected close to $19 million that was intended for small businesses.

Their joint report begins:

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused immense job loss, social isolation, and economic hardship. Despite falling short of what’s truly needed, both the federal government and state governments have provided relief through a number of programs, such as the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which is directed at small businesses in an effort to maintain employment.
Other programs have provided relief to public entities, including public schools. However, some charter schools—which are publicly funded but privately managed—have applied for and received PPP loans despite having no loss in public funding.1 This data brief examines PPP funding within the boundaries of just one public school district in California, the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD), and finds that Oakland’s charter schools have received a total of at least $18,909,300 in loans from the PPP.

The crisis has made clear that public schools are a critical resource for communities, providing information, technology, and food for children and families, even when school buildings are closed. The need for social distancing and sheltering in place has resulted in crisis education strategies that have left families desperate to return to regular schooling. In order to ensure some continuity of education, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an order maintaining full funding for all public schools, including charter schools, through the end of the school year.2 The order makes clear that the intended use of the continued funding includes paying school employees. This has enabled California public schools to continue to employ all staff with no reduction in state funding, while using additional funds to implement distance learning. In addition, Federal CARES Act funding has been granted to the state of California and will be distributed to all Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that apply and qualify.3 Also, the California State Legislature allocated $100,000,000 to all LEAs (including charter schools) for emergency measures needed to deal with the immediate crisis.4

Separate from state and federal aid for public education, the federal CARES Act established the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) in order to allow small businesses (as opposed to public agencies and schools) to maintain employment. As described
by the U.S. Small Business Administration: “The Paycheck Protection Program is a loan designed to provide a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their workers on the payroll. SBA will forgive loans if all employees are kept on the payroll for eight weeks and the money is used for payroll, rent, mortgage interest, or utilities.”5 A subsequent bill extended the covered period to 24 weeks from the date of the loan’s origination, or December 31, 2020, whichever comes earlier.6

The intent of the program is clear: “With the COVID-19 emergency, many small businesses nationwide are experiencing economic hardship as a direct result of the Federal, State, and local public health measures that are being taken to minimize
the public’s exposure to the virus. These measures, some of which are government- mandated, are being implemented nationwide and include the closures of restaurants, bars, and gyms. In addition, based on the advice of public health officials, other measures, such as keeping a safe distance from others or even stay-at-home orders, are being implemented, resulting in a dramatic decrease in economic activity as the public avoids malls, retail stores, and other businesses.”7

Thus far, the PPP has been criticized for a lack of guidance and being difficult to
access for many small businesses.8 For example, Octavio Diaz, owner of the Oakland restaurant Agave Uptown, was forced in April to lay off over 60 percent of staff because the business didn’t have the financial resources to keep a full payroll.9 He’d previously reported applying for a PPP loan but was waiting for a response.10 Beninni, a men’s formalwear store in Hayward, California, was forced to close and lay off employees shortly after the area’s lockdown began.11 After waiting weeks to get an update on its PPP application, the small business finally received a loan through the program only after a reporter reached out to the lending bank for information. A May U.S. Census Bureau survey of 90,000 small businesses found that almost 40 percent had not received PPP assistance.12

While small businesses wither and die, 70% of the charter schools in Oakland have taken money from the PPP intended to help those businesses.

Please open the brief and see how charter schools are double-dipping: first, taking the money intended for public schools, then, taking the federal PPP funding intended for small businesses, even though charter schools have not lost any revenue unlike the tens of thousands of small businesses forced to close because of the pandemic.

What the charter schools have done is not illegal, but it is certainly raises ethical questions. They are taking money from the businesses that are failing and that employ the parents of their students.

As “In the Public Interest” said in a press release,

CONTACT: Jamie Horwitz 202-549-4921, jhdcpr@starpower.net & Jeremy Mohler 301-752-8413, jmohler@inthepublicinterest.org

New Report Reveals that Many of the Nation’s Charter Schools are “Double Dipping,” Taking Millions of Paycheck Protection Dollars Intended for Small Businesses and the Unemployed

Joint study by In the Public Interest and Parents United for Public Schools shows that in Oakland, Calif. alone 30 charter schools received nearly $19 million in federal PPP dollars meant for those in need, despite unchanged state public education funding.

OAKLAND – A new report released yesterday shows that millions of dollars in federal relief funds intended for those in need have been siphoned off by charter schools that have suffered no loss in state education funding while thousands of small businesses remain shuttered and their employees go without work due to the pandemic.

The report focuses on 43 charter schools located in Oakland where 70 percent of the publicly-funded but privately-managed charter schools within the boundaries of the Oakland Unified School District applied for and received federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) awards established by the federal CARES Act. Traditional public schools in Oakland and elsewhere are not eligible for PPP funding. The report, entitled Are Oakland Charter Schools Double Dipping?, was conducted by the Oakland-based Parents United for Public Schools and the nonprofit research and policy center In the Public Interest.

The findings are significant because California’s open meetings laws require board meetings and the minutes of charter schools to be made public.. In most of the country, charter school finances are less transparent, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury has refused to release the names of recipients of PPP awards. The United States has 7,000 charter schools.

“This report shows the need for more oversight and transparency in the charter school sector,” said Clare Crawford, senior policy advisor with In the Public Interest. “It’s not right for charters to act like a business on Monday and a public school on Tuesday. Having it both ways leads to double dipping and unethical raids on the public till. We deserve to have the full picture on how precious public dollars are being spent, especially now, during this time of need,” she said. “Every local public official and reporter should be asking if their charters took PPP money and how much.”

The New York Times cites the Oakland study in a story yesterday, “Charter Schools, Some With Billionaire Benefactors, Tap Coronavirus Relief,” that finds further examples of double dipping by charter schools all across the nation and documents how the charter school industry has sought federal dollars intended for private business’ struggling due to the pandemic.

Some key elements of the Parents United for Public Schools/ In the Public Interest report include:

Oakland charter schools have received a total of at least $18,909,300 in forgivable loans from the PPP.
Thirty charter schools have received PPP loans despite having no loss in public education funding.
Charter schools that received both PPP loans and CARES Act education relief funding received an average of $2,000 more per student than either Oakland Unifed School District public schools or charter schools that did not.
“It’s really concerning that so many charter schools are choosing to take these funds from local small businesses that employ Oakland families. If charter schools receive funds as a ‘public school,’ they should not then be eligible for small business loans intended to help keep families from being laid off,” said Kim Davis, a parent and co-founder of Parents United for Public Schools.

Charter schools are considered public schools under California law, as they are in many other states, yet they are also incorporated as nonprofit organizations. This has allowed them to access both public school funding and aid intended to support maintaining employment at small businesses and nonprofits.

Parents United for Public Schools is an independent, parent-led organization focused on building a strong parent voice on behalf of Oakland’s public schools. In the Public Interest is a nonprofit research and policy center that studies public goods and advocates for building popular support for public institutions that work for all of us.

In 1994, the Clinton administration allocated $6 million to help start charter schools, a brand-new idea that had no track record and looked promising. That money was intended for teacher-led innovative schools or mom-and-pop start ups. The federal Charter Schools Program has since grown into an annual pot of $440 million, which mostly goes to corporate charter chains like IDEA and KIPP, which are rolling in dough.

The CSP is riddled with waste, as about 1/3 of the schools that were funded with federal dollars either close soon after opening or never open at all, as studies of federal data by NPE demonstrate.

Now existing charters are getting permission From the Department of Education to tap into the funds for start ups and use it to pay off coronavirus expenses. This is a direct refutation of the purpose of the law. No such fund exists to help public schools.

By now we know that DeVos uses federal funds as she wishes. She treats the CSP as her private slush fund. She creates conditions on the coronavirus relief funds that Congress never authorized. She is out of control.

Peter Greene knows, as do we, that the tech industry has stolen and misused the term “personalized learning,” which to them means a student in front of a computer that holds his or her data.

In this post, he reimagines a future of genuine personalized learning, in which there are small classes and one to one instruction.

But what if we reclaimed the term “personalized education”? What if we decided that the key to personalized learning is not computers, but human beings? Could we meet the needs of students and the recommendations of the CDC? Let’s play the reimagining education game. What could actual personalized education look like?

To really personalize education, you need to provide more time and opportunity for teachers and individual students to interact. There are many ways we could do this, but let’s try this—split the school day in half and have teachers spend half the day teaching class, and half the day in conference with individual students. Reduce class size to a maximum of fifteen; that will allow teachers to get to know students better, sooner, and will also make it easier to do social distancing within the classroom. It retains class meetings, which provide the invaluable opportunity for learning to occur as part of a community of learners.

Can we afford it? Of course we can, if educating the future is a priority. If the president persuaded Congress that we had to make war, Congress would write in the numbers on a blank check.A trillion? No problem.

Our children? No problem.

Oppose any cuts. Education needs huge increases to keep our students and teachers and staff safe. We should spend whatever is necessary to protect them and our future.

The coronavirus has caused incalculable harm to millions of people. Two million people have been infected. More than 100,000 have died. The death toll increases daily. The scientific response to the pandemic—close down the economy—caused additional harm, with most economic activity halted, millions of people out of work, businesses Closed, livelihoods lost. The economic shutdown caused a dramatic decline in state revenues, which means less funding for schools. As schools plan to reopen, classes must be smaller, more nurses and healthcare workers are needed, and costs will rise, to keep students and staff safe.

How can schools cut costs while costs are rising? They can’t.

Three scholars—Bruce D. Baker, Mark Weber, and Drew Aitchinson—propose four specific steps that are needed to enable schools to weather the collapse of state revenues due to the global pandemic.

The first of these is a federal aid package. Without federal aid, schools cannot reopen safely, cannot reduce class sizes, and cannot provide the care that students and staff need.

Congress will have to decide whether it is willing to invest in the nation’s children and their teachers. And in our shared future.

Stephen Dyer was in the Ohio legislature when the state’s Edchoice voucher program started as a small initiative. Since then, it has grown, despite research showing that it provides no education benefit to students while taking money away from public schools.

In this post, he announces the launch of a program to educate the public about how vouchers harm their public schools. Every dollar allotted to a voucher school is a dollar less for public schools.

As districts face huge budget cuts in the coming school years, it behooves them to defend every dollar they can so their students have all they need to succeed. That’s why the folks at Real Choice Ohio, which fought for years to help districts cope with charter school losses to great success, have started a series of workshops to help districts educate and inform parents nd their communities about the dangers of the EdChoice vouchers to their kids and other kids’ futures.

The first pillar of these conferences deals with the overall problem facing districts and the kids theiy serve. I am helping to lead this pillar, complete with Power Point presentations and I will be moderating an all-star panel on the EdChoice and voucher problem next week.

Open the post to learn how to sign up.

Politico Morning Education reports that states are divided about whether to take Betsy DeVos’ advice and distribute federal funds based on enrollment, not need. This is her way of sending federal money to private schools, including elite private schools. She has been rebuked by both Republican leaders like Lamar Alexander and Democrats including Patty Murray and Bobby Scott. DeVos is not backing down and is trying to find a way of mandating her wishes, despite Congressional objections.

STATES PUSH BACK AGAINST STEERING CORONAVIRUS FUNDS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS: Despite DeVos’ call to allow private school kids access to coronavirus stimulus funds, Republican-led states like Oklahoma, Mississippi and Indiana are refusing to, and so are Maine, Washington, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Wisconsin.

— DeVos told states that they should steer a greater share of their coronavirus relief to private school students than would be usual under federal education law. She issued a policy that directed school districts to base the allocation on total enrollment in the private schools, rather than poverty levels, and could issue a rule in the next few weeks to get states to abide by it.

— Ten states say they will go along with DeVos, including Tennessee and Texas. Some states told POLITICO they’re trying to decide what to do or playing it safe by temporarily setting aside the additional money that would go to private school kids.

— Education departments in Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, California, South Carolina, New York, Oregon and D.C. are still reviewing the guidance. Meanwhile, officials in Colorado, Illinois and Ohio are advising districts to calculate the equitable share based on students in poverty, but to set aside the difference in funding, as DeVos recommended.

Sara Roos reviews the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars by Los Angeles School Superintendent Austin Beutner, who was given authority without accountability during the pandemic. She explains where the money went by referring to the school board’s documents.

She writes:

The Superintendent who now controls purse, policy and process, was appointed with a tenuous mandate, by a school board elected under an avalanche of ideological school-privatization money. That board unethically extending the tenure of its slim majority just long enough to appoint this Superintendent by failing to censure its swing board member charged with felonious campaign fraud. What priorities does the former investment banker Superintendent Austin Beutner’s emergency spending reveal?
Given this extraordinary freedom from accountability, what did Beutner do? SaraRoos explains.

She shows how Beutner has used the crisis to outsource crucial functions to private management. She even names the vendors who profited.

The Network for Public Education is gathering data on charter schools that applied for and received federal funding as small businesses. Most prefer not to admit what they have done, but diligent citizens can request copies of the minutes of their board meetings.

NPE’s Marla Kilfoyle has been diligently collecting the names and the amounts that charter schools have received from the SBA PPP loans. It has not been easy because charters do not want to admit they are taking these funds.

Will you lend Marla a hand? Check the board minutes of your local charter schools during April and May and see if the charter Board approved applying for and accepting PPP funds. If you find any, send the name of the school, amount and a link to the board minutes.

Just click on her email address to generate an email:
marlakilfoyle@networkforpubliceducation.org.

Under its CEO Tom Torkelsen, the charter chain IDEA experienced explosive growth, dramatic success in winning nearly $200 million in federal funds from Betsy DeVos and the federal Charter Schools Program, but multiple scandals involving lavish spending on personal perks, like a lease on a private jet, first-class travel, and box seats at sporting events.

Torkelsen announced his resignation in April, and the board has agreed to give him severance pay of $900,000. Just like a public school superintendent, right?